G. True Nelson: Former Deputy Sheriff, Military Officer, FBI Special Agent, and Security Consultant / Private Investigator. He currently resides in the Portland, Oregon Metro area. He is a writer on crime and judicial process; as well as discussing his personal observations on American culture and social mores.

RETURN

Saturday, May 31, 2014

I’ve read a large portion of Elliot’s ‘manifesto.’ Manifesto:
Haven’t you grown to hate that word?
It once was a respectable word generally meaning setting forth one’s public
policies. Not now – from the Unabomber
(Ted Kaczynski) to Elliot Rodger, serial killers and mass murderers have a name
for their insane, written, invariably and extensively published ramblings.

I’m not going to show a picture of Elliot Rodger. The one we’ve all seen kind of gives one the
creeps. I’m not going to quote his
words, I’ve thought about them enough. I
do have some thoughts about this tragedy, based on my life experience. And, some of you might be interested.

First, please don’t blame this tragedy on guns. That explanation is so ill-considered and
uninformed that it hardly warrants an explanation. Guns are ubiquitous in American society and
always have been. For those of you who
can remember back fifty years – as I can.
Could you name one family during that period who didn’t have some sort
of gun in the household? I never lived
in a major city like some of you have.
Perhaps, big city dwellers can think of a family; but I can’t. I wasn’t exactly raised in the ‘boondocks,’
just typical America where people hunted for sport and to augment their food supply;
or just enjoyed plinking. I was shooting
a BB gun in grade school; pistols, rifles and shotguns in Junior and Senior
High School. Guns can’t explain
Elliot. No, something is different about
our modern culture and it isn’t guns.

To blame guns is simplistic.
It is an explanation used by politicians to simplify a very complicated
issue. To say we need more gun control is
a nonsensical cliché, and an inane answer to a complex issue. Yes, of course, guns can kill. Knives can kill. Cars can kill. Each method of which Elliot used in his
rampage. He also planned arson to
increase the body count.

Well, it might be said, he hated women; sorry I don’t buy it. I think that was the rationalization of his twisted
mind. After all, he also planned to kill
his stepmother and brother. If he hated
women, he would have wanted nothing to do with women. It sounds to me like he desperately wanted a
relationship with a woman. He railed at
the injustice of being a 22-year-old virgin.
Well, a short drive to Nevada in his parents’ purchased BMW, wearing his
five hundred dollar sweater, would have solved that problem. More likely, Elliot hated himself.

So what caused this?

I think the number one problem is the overall breakdown and
ineffectiveness of our mental health system.
We used to put the mentally ill in hospitals, sometimes against their
will, so that they could be treated.
Now, they live under a bridge and beg on the streets. Society has failed these people. Society failed Elliot and his victims. Elliot was a troubled, to say the least,
young man who had been receiving psychological therapy from the age of
eight. He was a person that should have
never been allowed to purchase a gun ‘legally;’ but he did. And, as we know, California has some of the
strictest gun laws in the Nation. Someone,
probably more than one so-called medical expert, failed Elliot and society; and
contributed to the death of six innocent young people.

Secondly, the news media deserves some of the blame. They give too much publicity to these
events. They tell us everything we didn’t
particularly want to know about the murderer’s background, family, friends,
etc. They create an instant
celebrity. And why do they do it? Three reasons: money, money, and more money.

Third, our children are overexposed to violence to the point
of being desensitized by movies, television, video games, etc. That’s modern entertainment folks.

Fourth, I think, based on my experience, if we knew the
whole story we would learn that there were serious family issues and trauma involved
– as seems to be the case in many of these murder sprees by young men and boys.

Monday, May 26, 2014

Today, Memorial Day, I hung out my American Flag. It is a small token of remembrance. I wish there were flags flying from every
residence, but this morning I’ve seen very few.
Exhibiting patriotism has become somewhat stodgy in our current culture;
I’m sad to say. Patriotism is often now equated
with militarism, which is not the case.
But, this is what we are now taught.
This is what we’ve become.

For some Americans, this holiday is a day for barbecues and a few 'brewskies.' Little thought is given to the true meaning of Memorial Day. It is, however, the day we honor the military men and women who gave their lives to protect our freedoms.

This holiday should not be confused with Veterans’ Day – a holiday to honor those who served in the military.

Memorial Day was first dedicated as a federal holiday
shortly after the Civil War, initially known as Decoration Day. It was in remembrance of all those soldiers,
North and South, who gave their lives for a cause they believed in. Some say that cause was states’ rights, some
say to preserve the Union, some say to free the slaves. Most of those who gave their lives died to
protect their comrades, families and their way of life.

On November 19th, 1863, President Abraham Lincoln
gave one of the greatest speeches this Country has ever known, the Gettysburg
Address. In my day, high school students
were required to memorize Lincoln’s speech.
I doubt that current high school students do the same. Anyway, here it is. Please take the time to read it once again and think
about the words. The speech’s message is
applicable today.

True Nelson

“Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent
a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all
men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or
any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a
great battlefield of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that
field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that
nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate, we cannot consecrate, we cannot
hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have
consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will
little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what
they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished
work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather
for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from
these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave
the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead
shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth
of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people,
shall not perish from the earth.”
Abraham Lincoln

Friday, May 16, 2014

I’m looking for the proper words here. Is it ironic or paradoxical, or just plain
tragic that Diren Dede was shot and killed.
His death, at the hands of Markus Kaarma, was apparently set in motion
by the previous illegal actions of one Tristan Stabler and a juvenile
associate. Can we, therefore, postulate
that Diren gave his life so that Tristan and / or, perhaps, the juvenile should
live?

Stabler and the juvenile have admitted to the two previous burglaries. Being successful, on the first two occasions
without consequences, it is almost certain Stabler would have returned to the
open and inviting garage. Some might
opine that, if Stabler was smart, he would not go back to the same house. It has been my professional experience that
petty thieves generally do not have that level of circumspection. As they say it’s not rocket science.

The Dede killing is more tragic in the sense that, the night
he was killed, it was his first venture into Kaarma’s open garage. What was Dede’s actual motivation? Was his intention to steal? Or was it simply immature curiosity? We will never know. However, it makes one remember the foolish
things that we all did as teenagers.

Life is never fair. That is a
lesson of which we must be continually reminded.

Wednesday, May 14, 2014

The more I think about this case, the more disgusted I
become. This death was so needless and
tragic.

I don’t think the forensic tests are back, but almost
certainly Markus Kaarma’s judgment was affected by his use of illegal drugs. If that is not the case, this man has some
serious mental issues. Most likely, it
is both.

Marijuana is known to magnify
character flaws (admittedly this is also true of alcohol).

If you read the prosecutor’s affidavit in support of 'probable cause,' you will note that Kaarma had previously boasted to others about
waiting to kill the person or persons who had earlier burglarized his garage. Basically, Kaarma set a trap. There is no excusing his conduct. His actions were undoubtedly a crime.Affidavit / Relevant

This case reminds me of the hypothetical situation,
sometimes discussed in law enforcement seminars, wherein a homeowner has rigged
a tripwire to a shotgun. When an unknown
person enters the room, he trips the wire and the shotgun fires. Fact, the homeowner is not at home at the
time. What if the person killed is
actually a burglar? What if the person
killed is the homeowner’s son returning, unexpectedly, from college? This scenario often creates a lively
debate. Is it legal to set a lethal trap
within your own home? Is the death of a
burglar less serious than the death of the homeowner’s son? Is it a crime? Yes.

We cannot totally excuse Diren Dede that night. Diren made a terrible
mistake that cost him his life. The
other boy, who waited along the street for Diren, was also an exchange student at the
high school. That boy was from Ecuador. The police
interviewed the boy concerning his involvement and found no immediate reason to
hold him. And, as a result, he has since
left the United States. I suppose that
was a smart move on his part; but it could become a legal issue at trial. He was, after all, a principal witness, even
a possible co-conspirator in a crime.

What about the high school’s responsibility? I suppose it goes without saying that you
shouldn’t be out stealing from the local residents. But, what kind of briefing are these
teenagers given upon their arrival in the U.S.?

What about self-defense or the ‘castle doctrine?’ Not relevant under the described
circumstances – at best a mitigating factor, but doubtful. The defense attorney will attempt to use self-defense arguments, but it won’t work.

Interestingly, two individuals have been recently arrested by the Missoula PD for the previous two burglaries at Kaarma's residence. One is an 18 year old, Tristan Stabler, and the other is a juvenile. Reportedly, during the first burglary, these two cleaned-out Kaarma's stash of marijuana. During the second burglary, they took a wallet and an iPhone.The information now available was that Diren and another boy (referenced above) named Robby Pazino were walking in the neighborhood. Inexplicably, according to Pazino, Diren decided to enter the open garage. Diren didn't say what he planned to do, but Pazino suspected that Diren was after beer.

Saturday, May 10, 2014

Sometimes, when I hear about these crimes, I can understand ‘gun
control’ advocates’ frustration. If it
was only possible to give someone an IQ test before they purchased a gun, we’d
all be safer.

I’m referring to the shooting involving Diren Dede (age 17),
an exchange student from Germany. Diren
was a high school student in Missoula, Montana.
He was shot and killed by a homeowner who was allegedly protecting his
property (personal property which reportedly also included illegal drugs,
namely marijuana).

What are the facts as we now know them?

·Diren was involved in the burglary of a
residence. This is considered to be a
felony in most states. I don’t mean to
be callous, but we can’t mince words here.

·The shooter, Markus Kaarma, the homeowner, had
previous recent burglaries from his garage – to include the loss of several personal
items which, reportedly, also included his stash of marijuana. Furthermore, and allegedly, he had reported
these previous burglaries (not mentioning, I imagine, the marijuana part) to local
law enforcement who, reportedly, expressed little interest. Perhaps, this particular bulleted point can’t
be considered factual because of the inordinate use of the adverbs ‘reportedly’
and ‘allegedly.’

·Kaarma, concerned about the burglaries,
purchased motion detection, video equipment for his garage; and then left the
garage door open just in case a potential burglar might be deterred by the
closed garage door. Well, actually, and
in fairness, Kaarma said he customarily left the garage door open because he
smoked cigarettes in the garage, and the open door was for ventilation.

·Kaarma then waited expectantly for the burglar
or burglars to return. He armed himself
with a shotgun, anticipating the potential confrontation.

·The night of April 27th, Diren entered Kaarma’s darkened
garage (which was attached to his residence) intent on stealing something from
the garage. Now, some have contended
that Diren only wanted to steal beer or some inconsequential item from the
garage, that it constituted more of a game than an actual crime. The extent of his criminal intentions, nonetheless, are not
known; and, of course, are not particularly relevant. He was there to commit a crime.

·The video equipment installed by Kaarma alerted
him and his girlfriend that someone, unknown, was in his garage. Kaarma took his shotgun, went around to the
front of the garage, and fired four rounds into the darkened garage, killing
Diren.

What are we to make of this incident? Who was in the wrong? What went wrong? What are the wider implications?

The above photo was released by Kaarma’s attorney, Paul
Ryan. It shows Diren entering the darkened garage.

Monday, May 5, 2014

Not a lot is known, at least to me, about the actual manner
in which Vanessa Stiviano recorded her private conversation (the now infamous
conversation) with her ‘mentor,’ Donald Sterling. Was the recording legal?

I’ve read that others, besides Stiviano and Sterling, were
in the room when the recording was made.

I’ve read that Stiviano customarily recorded Sterling statements
with his knowledge.

I’ve read that the recorded conversation was a very private
conversation between Stiviano and Sterling and that Sterling did not know he was
being recorded.

The facts regarding how the recording was made are relevant. And, there could be repercussions, both civil
and criminal, for Stiviano. However, the
facts regarding how the recording was made may have no bearing on the punitive
actions directed at Sterling by the NBA, once the recording became public.

The recording of conversations, as well as the videotaping
of individuals, without their awareness, is a confusing area of law. I will attempt to summarize.

Just as an aside, this is an investigative technique (recording conversations or making a videotape) that is
a continual preoccupation with private investigators, as well as a
controversial topic of discussion. There
is, of course, both Federal and State laws that describe what is illegal or
legal, presented in a somewhat complex and often not very helpful manner. In addition, to the laws, with all their
intricate nuances, there is a legal principal that applies to recordings and
videotaping referred to as: ‘an
expectation of privacy.’ When an
investigator violates this ‘expectation’ without an appropriate court order, he
or she is treading on thin ice.

Initially, Federal Law seems rather straightforward. Regarding a recorded, two-person
conversation, either in person or on the telephone; it is generally legal if
one of the individuals knows a recording is being made. However…
If you are really interested, or think it might apply to something you
plan to do, you must plow through Title
18, U.S. Code 2511, Interception and Disclosure of Wire, Oral, or Electronic
Communications Prohibited. It is
lengthy, but here is the section that might apply to what Stiviano did:

“It shall not be
unlawful under this chapter for a person not acting under color of law to
intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication where such person is a
party to the communication or where one of the parties to the communication has
given prior consent to such interception unless such communication is intercepted
for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act in violation of the
Constitution or laws of the United States or of any State.”

Additionally, there are other elements of said statute that
apply to the publication or dissemination of the recorded conversation, which it
appears that Stiviano might have violated; as well as the media outlet that took the recording and broadcast it.

California (where it is believed that the
recording took place) is a ‘two-party’ state.
In other words, to record a private conversation, California state law
dictates that both parties to the conversation must be aware that a recording
is being made – which puts you in a position, consequently, of also being in violation of
Federal Law.

As I said initially, it’s complicated. However, as I also said, this complexity may
not matter to the NBA. The recording was
made available to the public. The NBA
had no involvement in the making of the recording or in its subsequent release
to the public. Therefore, they probably
are clear to take any action they deem appropriate.

Sunday, May 4, 2014

The discussion topic of the moment is, of course, Donald
Sterling, previously known as Donald Tokowitz.
Yes, he too is of an often maligned minority group. He is the billionaire owner of the NBA’s Los
Angeles Clippers. I would like to make
some brief introductory comments and then proceed to my area of interest –
covert recordings of conversations.

Most everyone is apparently shocked and aghast at Mr. Sterling’s statements regarding African Americans.
And, I don’t intend to defend him.
Based on what I’ve read about his actions now and in the past, he is a
bully and an entirely repugnant individual.

His girlfriend, Vanessa Stiviano, approximately 50 years Sterling’s
junior, reportedly recorded a private conversation between her and Sterling –
during which he made some disparaging remarks about “Blacks.” This recording was turned over to a
newspaper, and the s--- hit the fan.

As we all now know, the NBA Commissioner, Adam Silver, came
down hard on Sterling – a $2.5 million dollar fine, Sterling was banned from
even entering the door of any NBA facility, and apparently will be forcing Sterling to sell the Clippers. OK, Silver made a
business decision in the best interests of the NBA – and that’s fine with
me. Remember, the NBA is a business, a
very lucrative business involving very highly paid employees – namely the
players – who are incidentally mostly African Americans (Blacks); although I earnestly
wish we could finally all be just Americans.
That is, however, extremely unlikely in my lifetime.

If you listen to the recording of the private conversation
between Stiviano and Sterling, and I admit that I’ve not heard the whole thing,
what Sterling said is undeniably offensive and ignorant (especially for someone
in his professional position and considering that his alleged girlfriend is
reportedly half Black); but it doesn’t exactly knock your socks off. I’m kind of surprised at how shocked most of
the public is about his remarks.

Haven’t most of you at one time or another expressed or laughed
at an offensive comment about some other group?
Personally, I’ve heard many derogatory statements and jokes
involving: females (blondes in
particular) Polish people, Irish people, Mexicans, Asians, American Indians, Harvard
graduates, Texas A & M graduates, lawyers, law enforcement personnel, Marines,
Army, Air Force, Navy, old people, young people, every religious affiliation,
Republicans, Democrats, George Bush, Barrack Obama ad infinitum. Have I missed anyone? Are we to believe that Blacks don’t make
jokes about ‘honkeys’ and ‘crackers’?
Are we all so oblivious to these tendencies in our own nature, or
hypocritical, that we don’t recognize that everyone, with very few exceptions, says
things at times that we really shouldn’t?

Let’s just put this in perspective. Sterling’s problems, and his private
comments, have become a business matter involving the image that the NBA wishes
to project. It is all about money.

The recording is about money. What were Stiviano’s motives? Who put her up to it? Who is in a position to gain the most?

Commissioner Silver gave it his best shot and everyone has
applauded. However, a year from now,
maybe more, Silver’s dictates will be modified in Sterling’s favor. Silver knows it. His actions constituted ‘crisis control.’ It’s about image, sponsors and money. And, as far as I’m concerned, he could have
left his righteous indignation in his office.

There is no greater implication involved. This doesn’t mean that racial bias against
African Americans is rampant in the U.S. or the NBA.
It really indicates nothing significant about American society, other
than some rich a---holes like front-row seats at sporting events and like to
have sex with pretty, young women. Moreover,
who exactly is the bigger a--hole here:
Vanessa or Donald?

Three Laws for Effective Gun Control

Here are three potential laws that I would recommend for effective gun control:

1) Convicted felon in possession of a gun: automatic three years in prison - no judicial discretion - no chance for parole.

2) Knowingly selling or furnishing a gun to a convicted felon: automatic three years in prison - no judicial discretion - no chance for parole.

3) Theft of a gun, during the commission of a felony: automatic three years in prison - no judicial discretion - no chance for parole - sentence in addition to any time associated with the attendant felony.